[Sosfbay-discuss] [Fwd: [PEACE] Attack on Iran]

[Fred Duperrault]

Something well worth the time to read:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[PEACE] Attack on Iran
Date: 	Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:20:22 -0400
From: 	Hank Stone <hstone at rochester.rr.com>
To: 	Hank Stone <hstone at rochester.rr.com>



 
This strikes me as an unusually level-headed look at the war our 
government is threatening against Iran...
 
--------------------
 
Sent by James Christner  christ14482 at yahoo.com 
<mailto:christ14482 at yahoo.com>
 
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/15607
 

*The Coming Attack on Iran: *

*A Perfect Storm of Madness*

* *

*By Bernard Weiner*

*Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers*

* *

*July 1, 2008*

* *

 The question is not whether Iran will be attacked, but by whom and 
whether the bombing will commence within the next several months or 
shortly after the November election.

 

The U.S. for many months has made bellicose noises about thwarting 
Iran's nuclear ambitions with force -- complete with a virtual repeat of 
its pre-war propaganda campaign prior to "shock&awe" against Iraq. 
Israel is reported to have just carried out a military exercise 
practicing for an attack on Iran. Iran is letting it be known how 
destructive and unconventional its retaliation would be if it is bombed. 
What is going on?

 

Though one can decry it, at least one can understand why Israel, just a 
short missile flight from Iran, might want to take "pre-emptive" action 
against that country were it to possess nuclear-weapons capabilities. 
But what's driving the neocons in the White House to push so insistently 
for an attack on Iran?

 

It seems clear that Cheney and Bush want Iran's nascent civilian nuclear 
program taken out now before it could become operational in a military 
sense five or ten years down the road. If this is true, why would the 
Administration have wanted to attack Iraq?

 

For decades, you may remember, Iraq was the buffer between an ambitious, 
strengthening Iran and the West's strategic interests in the Middle 
East, and for that reason the U.S. under Reagan helped Saddam in his war 
against his country's Iranian neighbor. But with Iraq sinking into 
military/economic irrelevance after what Cheney and Bush have done to 
ruin that country, Iran not surprisingly is filling the political and 
military vacuum in that Islamic region of the Greater Middle East.

 

The neocons argue that if Iran is not stopped now, America will lose all 
hopes of future influence and control in the oil-rich region. Iran would 
become one of the most powerful, and likely anti-U.S., players in the 
Greater Middle East, with all the military, economic and oil-based 
implications that such hegemonic power brings with it. In short, say the 
neocons, it's vital to stop Iran in its tracks now while the stopping is 
still possible. Once Iran has operational nuclear-tipped missiles -- 
which could be a mere ten years down the line, or less -- the entire 
equation would change.

 

 

THE HAWKS PREPARE

 

The neocons believe that if Iran is attacked by the U.S. and/or Israel, 
it could retaliate with missiles and asymmetrical warfare, but, given 
the firepower of U.S. and Israeli forces, its long-range military 
strength would be severely diminished for at least a decade or two, with 
little ability to successfully exercise its political authority in the 
region. Syria, another possible competitor for top-dog influence in the 
region, might try to fill the bill or, more likely, might well back off, 
seeing what its enemies did to both Iraq and Iran.

 

In short, from the neo-con hawk perspective, now is the perfect time to 
launch a "pre-emptive" air-attack on Iran. This is the case even though 
CheneyBush cannot produce any conclusive evidence that Iran is working 
on military uses of nuclear energy; that may be in their long-range plan 
but, by and large, the U.S. is basing its antagonism on speculation and 
future fears. In short, there does not appear to be any kind of imminent 
Iranian threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region. (Absent 
an imminent threat, an attack on a sovereign nation is regarded as 
illegal under international law, perhaps even a war crime.)

 

The Republicans also note that along with the quagmire in Iraq, a war 
with Iran would ensure that the new American President would find 
himself hogtied in Iran and to a diplomatic/military/economic policy in 
the Greater Middle East from which it would be difficult to disentangle. 
Also, both presidential candidates are firm supporters of Israel and 
have indicated they'd be open to taking military action against Iran to 
stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons, the difference being that McCain 
is more amenable to going forthrightly into a shootin' match, while 
Obama is willing to try diplomacy first without taking a possible attack 
off the table.

 

In short, given the complexities of what's at stake in the region, and 
how Bush&Co. is trying to lead the new Administration into highly 
dangerous waters, the new President might fail badly, making it easier 
for a Republican victory in the 2010 Congressional elections and the 
2112 presidential contest.

 

 

A GAME OF HIGH-STAKES "CHICKEN"?

 

So, there's that possible take on what is going on with regard to Iran. 
But what if it's all a high-stakes, all-in game of "chicken" being 
played out? Each side blustering, threatening an attack, but done with 
great restraint -- a lot of chest-beating, saber-rattling, insulting, 
etc., but no battles, just maneuvering to break the will of the other 
guy? Iran would want America to back off and let it go its own way in 
its own neighborhood, and the U.S. would want Iran to drop its plans for 
weapons-grade uranium enrichment.

 

Look at the situation this way: The American military, and National 
Guard/Reserves, are not in any mood to accept another major war, as U.S. 
forces around the world already are stretched way too thin and are, 
because of the way the troops are abused, having problems meeting their 
recruitment quotas. Likewise, the Pentagon chiefs are not especially 
crazy about initiating another war, especially against Iran, given the 
lack of firm evidence to support such an attack. Defense Secretary Gates 
keeps pumping for diplomacy with Iran and plays down any saber-rattling; 
Admiral William Fallon -- before he was forced to resign -- was head of 
Central Command and was vehemently and publicly trying to block Cheney's 
near-compulsion for attacking Iran.

 

In short, an attack on Iran would be almost totally a White House 
project with Cheney's hands all over it and is sure to engender even 
more retirements and then truth-telling from the resentful, angry 
military brass and perhaps an instantaneous upsurge of demands for 
impeachment of Cheney and Bush in the House.

 

 

ILLUSION OF POSITIVE "LEGACY"

 

And yet, even given that negative situation, I think Cheney and Bush are 
still salivating at the prospects of attacking Iran as a last spastic 
use of the power they've amassed for themselves. In addition, perhaps 
Cheney and Bush just might go for it in a final desperate attempt to 
establish their "legacy": They believe that eventually all Americans, 
and others, will realize that during their tenure they courageously and 
correctly began the process of bringing democracy and free-market 
capitalism to the "backward" Islamic countries in the Greater Middle 
East, even if at the point of a gun.

 

But what if the U.S. rulers miscalculate once again, a la Iraq -- some 
leading neocons blithely assume that the young, anti-mullah population 
of Iran will rise up following an attack and overthrow their religious 
rulers -- and the U.S. gets sucked into a no-win quagmire all over the 
Middle East? What then? Maybe CheneyBush don't give a rat's petunia; in 
the long run, as the solipsistic Bush has said about his "legacy," he'll 
be dead.

 

To gain their war, CheneyBush (along with Israel) are threatening and 
trying to provoke Iran into making a bad blunder in response that could 
be interpreted as a "hostile" act, requiring a retaliatory strike. 
According to Seymour Hersh, a former high-placed intelligence officer 
said that a secret meeting took place in Cheney's office where "the 
subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington."

 

At best, in Bush&Co. calculations, an air attack using "surgical" 
bombing runs and laser-guided missile attacks would quickly take out 
Iran's military/nuclear facilities, perhaps in a day or two, with little 
civilian "collateral" damage.

 

At worst, regardless of whether it's Israel or the U.S. initiating the 
attack, the result could lead to uncontrollable chaos and destruction -- 
and an oil-supply system badly wrecked, with all that implies for the 
economies of the U.S. and Europe -- and the clash of cultures that so 
many extremists, on both sides, seem almost to desire. (The U.N.'s chief 
nuclear official, Mohammed El Baradei, said an attack on Iran would turn 
the region in a "ball of fire.")  And the new President would be stuck 
with the catastrophe.

 

 

HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO WAR?

 

So how close are we to war against Iran? Former CIA official Ray 
McGovern reports that upon emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting 
with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud 
Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:

 

/"'We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. 
I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with 
regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American 
resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the 
severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends 
to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."/

 

McGovern also quotes a member of Olmert's delegation saying that the two 
countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that 
"the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian 
threat."   My best guess right now is that CheneyBush, as always 
divorced from the real world, will go for an attack probably later this 
summer, or, if not then, between the November election and the 
inauguration of a new President in January. Whether CheneyBush will do 
so with the U.S. playing the central role is unknown at this time. My 
guess is that the U.S. will be helpful to Israel in getting them to do 
the deed. (Remember that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor 
at Osirak in 1981.) Already, a huge number of America's military brass, 
including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, have 
recently had mostly secret consultations with their Israeli counterparts.

 

Neo-con Bill Kristol even suggests that if Bush thinks Obama is poised 
to win the presidency, he'll launch the attack either just prior to or 
right after the November election. In other words, better vote for 
McCain if you want to stop a widening war in the Greater Middle East. 
Political extortion of the first order.

 

 

BUILDING OF A "PERFECT STORM"

 

I would be happy to be proven wrong in all my speculations and to learn 
that what's happening in the Persian Gulf area is merely (!) a dangerous 
game of "chicken." If the latter, then someone with rational sense will 
veer away from the confrontation before it's too late and the region is 
plunged into full and total economic and military conflagration, with 
the spillover effect of a potential worldwide economic Depression and 
wars of choice throughout the region. In short, mixed in with an 
already-proceeding environmental collapse brought on by 
human-accelerated global warming, it's clear, as Hemingway might say, 
that there's a cataclysmic shitstorm coming. A perfect storm with 
untold, horrific consequences.

 

Finally, with Iran in the crosshairs, you would think that both Congress 
and the mainstream media would feel obliged to start paying some major 
investigative attention to the likelihood of such an attack, so that we 
won't wind up once again falling into war without a proper and lengthy 
debate about the wisdom of such a move. But once again, as was the case 
with the runup to the war against Iraq, Congress, this time controlled 
by the Democrats, remains inert and the corporate media remain mostly 
silent or act as cheerleaders for CheneyBush policy.

 

Prior to the "shock&awe" bombing of Iraq, those opposed to the coming 
attack put ten million dissenters into the streets around the globe. In 
contrast, today's so-called "antiwar movement" in the U.S. and elsewhere 
seems dormant in the face of the coming conflagration, with a lot of 
energy now siphoned off to the presidential campaign.

 

 

DO-NOTHING CONGRESS AND "MOVEMENT"

 

In sum, everything points to the likelihood of the coming attack with 
precious little countervailing power coming from the corporate media, 
anti-war forces, and the supposed "opposition" party, the Democrats, or 
the party's standard-bearer in the November election, Barack Obama. The 
U.S. economy already is teetering on the brink of a long-term recession, 
or worse, with ordinary citizens forced to work multiple jobs just to 
keep their families economically intact, with little extra time for 
political activism.

 

According to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter:

 

/"[Not only is Congress failing] to put any obstacles in the way of this 
policy but in fact Congress is actively facilitating this policy by 
refusing to enact legislation that would require the president to get 
the consent of Congress before going into Iran. The fact that Congress 
has opted out from tying the president's hands reinforces, at least in 
the Bush administration's mind, that Congress is legitimizing the 
potential of action. /

/ /

/"So when you put all of this together you start to see that there is 
not only a real risk of war but that those who would like to do it see 
that there aren't any obstacles being put in the way of their 
accomplishing this, which makes the likelihood of military action even 
greater. Everyday that goes by without Congressional action is another 
day that reinforces that there will be a military strike against Iran."/

 

Is the situation reversible before Israel and/or CheneyBush initiate the 
bombing runs and Tomahawk-missile attacks on Iran? Reversal may be 
possible if the opposition mobilizes intensely in the next few months, 
but, at the moment, that does not appear likely. America's dogs of war 
are about to be unleashed in the Greater Middle East yet again, with 
everyone else, the world, seemingly immobilized and ready to be treated 
as mere "collateral damage." It's the numbness of too much trauma.

 

Madness, madness.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20080703/3c75f64b/attachment.html>